Friday, October 5th 2007
Woman Fined $222,000 for Music Sharing
Jammie Thomas, a single mother from Minnesota, has been ordered to pay $222,000 in damages after being found guilty of illegally sharing music over the internet. Thomas was found to have shared over 1,700 files via Kazaa under the username Tereastarr, of which 24 were named in court. As a result she was ordered to pay $9,250 for each of the 24 songs, which totalled to $222,000. Thomas' defence attorney argued that there was no proof she was behind the keyboard sharing the songs, and forensic scientists were unable to find any evidence on her hard drive because it has been recently replaced. However, based on the fact that Thomas used the nickname Tereastarr for a number of internet services and that the sharing had been traced to her modem's MAC address the jury found her guilty of the charges. At the end of the case RIAA attorney Richard Gabriels said "This is what can happen if you don't settle."
Source:
DailyTech
51 Comments on Woman Fined $222,000 for Music Sharing
Also, illegal search and siezure without a warrant or consent FTW! Who needs police when we have private groups willing to break and enter and read all your crap and look through your stuff like the RIAA?
Rights are for free countries, not Amerika!
i swear this is just wrong because they go after those who cant fight back. they shouldnt be able to sue individuals only websites like Kazaa because they are the enabler. i dont think this was fair to limit what a person can freely give to others, its not like she made money from it.
the only difference is the record companies paid off the politicians to call free will a crime.
anything i own i can freely give and nothing i buy i do not own no matter what a crooked politician says. the arguement that i cant resell the song on the cd i buy makes sense and protects intelectual properties but to extend that to say i cant freely share it for free is crazy. but the law is the law and we must live with it.
they are not going about it the right way, they should make the internet illegal unless you have a goverment santioned website that is licensed and regulated for only goverment approved content. that would solve the problem once and for all, we should have that in about 10 years at the rate things are going.
This judgement is ridiculous, and the Judge and attorneys are clearly in the pocket of the RIAA. If you were an attorney, who would you want to win? A broke housewife, who could not possibly fund your next Yacht endeavor?!? Why on earth would RIAA ever hire you again for their next dozen court cases?
Clearly this case has to go to higher courts - even the US Supreme Court - to eliminate the money games!!!
Regards,
jtleon
The U.S. will ultimately crumble thanks to the apathy of its citizens!!!
Regards,
jtleon
Punish one single-mother for everyone's crime.
America is not free anymore, and I'm glad I don't live there.
For me, the correct fine would be:
1./ linked to the persons net worth or income. the size of that fine is going to bankrupt her and mean she, and her kids, are going to have a pretty shit life
2./ similar, and certainly not more, than the fines given to a pirate radio station for 23 songs = 2 hrs, of radio play, or
3./ similar to the fees that a national radio station must pay as royalties for playing 23 songs on the radio waves
There are people who get fined peanuts for, what I consider, to be much greater crimes than this: political embezzlement, "true" theft, corporate corruption, share option scams (e.g. Apple), companies not paying their RIAA fees, etc.
While I DO NOT THINK she should get away with it, the punishment is insane, and makes me lose a lot of respect for the people involved in serving this punishment on her.
USA has a habit of over doing things do people it doesnt like (both corporate and political). Shame.
Okay, bullshit, I know -- basically, the rich make the laws. Why would they want to increase their own fines? :p
They presented NO warrant to invade her computer that is invasion of privacy hell you can prevent a cop from looking at anything of yours until he or she shows you a warrant. SO that could definitely be fought.
It's not that she "didn't know" this could happen but more so that it shouldn't have happened like that..wheres the warning or anything like that...i think its a set up honestly it doesn't really make any sense look how many cases the RIAA have lost..they are desperate to try anything so why not set up a hoax to scare people? it makes perfect sense ...if you cant win...lie to win...
But I don't know how this would have turned out in the UK so I can't comment on different countries being nutcases.
I also agree that those fines are way to high. What a joke. I guess all those kids that burn a copy of a music CD for their friends are going to be doomed for life once they are caught. :wtf:
I don't really use it anymore.
I don't think any of the agents or judges or whatever can honestly say that they or any of their relatives have never used or viewed pirated media before.
9250 * 24 = 222.000$
If she was found guilty of downloading 1700 songs it would've been:
9250 * 1700 = 15.250.000$
if me or you won a case against the record companies for overpricing cds we would be limited to only collect the amount of loss, peanuts! the amount of loss they are allowing to be claimed here is out of line because they are treating her as though she was selling her own cds. in effect $1 for every person who downloaded her song.
this says loud and clear to anyone who shares files on the internet you "are" breaking the law but jaywalkers are not put in jail and file sharers should not be saddled with lifelong debt that ruins families. the wife and kids of some idiot sharing files shouldnt have their future ruined by it.
JMHO